HEADNOTE
Case Title: Alauddin @ Shakeel v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date of Judgment: 20 January 2026
Citation: CRL.A. 328/2018
Laws/Sections Involved:
Section 10, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;
Section 506 (Part II), Indian Penal Code, 1860;
Sections 374(2) and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Keywords: POCSO Act, child sexual abuse, criminal intimidation, hostile child witness, defective investigation, sentencing reduction
Summary
The Delhi High Court partly allowed a criminal appeal filed by Alauddin @ Shakeel, affirming his conviction for aggravated sexual assault on minors under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and for criminal intimidation under Section 506 (Part II) IPC. While upholding the sentence of six years’ rigorous imprisonment for sexual assault, the Court reduced the sentence for criminal intimidation from three years to one year, considering the appellant’s age at the time of the offence. The Court held that minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of child victims and partial hostility of one witness did not affect the core prosecution case. It reiterated that defects in investigation, including discrepancies regarding arrest, cannot by themselves lead to acquittal when evidence otherwise establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Court’s decision
In a significant ruling reinforcing the evidentiary value of child witness testimony in sexual offence cases, the Delhi High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by Alauddin @ Shakeel, while firmly upholding his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act for aggravated sexual assault and under Section 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code for criminal intimidation. While maintaining the sentence of six years’ rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence, the Court exercised sentencing discretion to reduce the punishment for criminal intimidation from three years to one year. The Court directed that both sentences run concurrently, thereby modifying only the quantum of punishment and not the finding of guilt.
Facts of the case
The prosecution case arose from disturbing allegations of repeated sexual abuse of three minor girls residing in the same neighbourhood as the accused. According to the prosecution, the appellant lured the children into his house on multiple occasions by offering them small sums of money. Once inside, he allegedly subjected them to sexual assault and threatened them with dire consequences if they disclosed the incidents to anyone.
The abuse came to light not through an immediate police complaint, but through an incident at the victims’ school. Teachers noticed the children exchanging handwritten notes during class hours. On examining the slips, the teachers found detailed descriptions of sexual abuse allegedly committed by the appellant. The matter was escalated to the school principal, parents were informed, and the police were subsequently called. An FIR was registered, statements of the children were recorded under Section 164 CrPC, and medical examinations were conducted.
Issues before the High Court
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were sustainable in law. The Court was also required to examine whether alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the child witnesses, partial hostility of one victim during trial, and discrepancies in the investigation—particularly regarding the place of arrest—created sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal or extension of the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Additionally, the Court considered whether, even if the conviction was upheld, the sentence imposed required interference on grounds of proportionality and mitigating circumstances.
Petitioner’s arguments
The appellant contended that the trial court erred in relying on the testimonies of the child witnesses, which were alleged to be inconsistent, contradictory, and embellished. It was argued that one of the victims initially stated in court that no wrongful act had been committed against her, thereby rendering her testimony unreliable. The defence further submitted that since the co-accused had been acquitted by the trial court, the same benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellant as well.
Another major plank of the defence was the alleged defect in investigation. The appellant pointed out discrepancies between the arrest memo and the daily diary entry regarding the place of arrest, arguing that such inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the prosecution case. In the alternative, the appellant prayed for leniency in sentencing if the conviction was to be upheld.
Respondent’s arguments
Opposing the appeal, the State argued that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through consistent testimonies of the victims, corroborated by contemporaneous written disclosures and independent witnesses, namely the school teachers. The State submitted that the initial reluctance or partial hostility of one child witness was natural, given the age of the victim and the trauma associated with sexual abuse.
It was further argued that minor inconsistencies in child testimony are inevitable and do not undermine the core prosecution case. The State emphasised that defects in investigation, if any, did not go to the root of the matter and could not outweigh the substantive evidence on record.
Analysis of the law
The High Court undertook a careful analysis of the legal principles governing appreciation of evidence in cases involving child victims of sexual offences. The Court reiterated that the testimony of a child witness cannot be discarded merely because of minor inconsistencies or initial hesitation, particularly when such testimony is otherwise credible and corroborated by surrounding circumstances.
The Court also reaffirmed the settled position of law that defective or imperfect investigation does not automatically entitle an accused to acquittal. The key consideration, the Court noted, is whether the defects are so serious as to create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. Absent such doubt, a conviction cannot be interfered with solely on account of investigative lapses.
Precedent analysis
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court observed that courts must be cautious not to allow investigative shortcomings to overshadow substantive evidence. The judgment reiterated that while fair investigation is an integral part of fair trial, the ultimate focus must remain on whether the evidence on record establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court applied these principles to the present case, holding that discrepancies regarding the place of arrest or procedural lapses did not materially affect the prosecution’s version of events, which stood firmly supported by oral and documentary evidence.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the testimonies of the three victims, when read as a whole, presented a consistent narrative of sexual abuse by the appellant. While acknowledging that one victim initially resiled from parts of her earlier statement, the Court accepted her explanation that fear and trauma had prompted her hesitation. The Court noted that the victim was barely 9–10 years old at the time of the incident and around 11 years old when she testified, making minor discrepancies both natural and understandable.
Significantly, the Court attached weight to the handwritten notes exchanged between the children, which were contemporaneous accounts of the abuse and were discovered independently by teachers. The testimonies of the teachers were found to be wholly reliable and free from any motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
Sentencing considerations
On the issue of sentence, the Court observed that Section 10 of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum sentence of five years, extendable to seven years. The trial court’s imposition of six years’ rigorous imprisonment was held to be proportionate and justified, particularly in light of the repeated nature of the abuse and the vulnerability of the victims.
However, with respect to the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 (Part II) IPC, the Court considered the appellant’s age—24 years at the time of the offence—as a mitigating factor. Balancing this against the seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s criminal antecedents, the Court reduced the sentence from three years to one year.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s judgment strikes a careful balance between safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring justice for child victims of sexual abuse. By refusing to allow minor inconsistencies or investigative lapses to dilute credible evidence, the Court reaffirmed the protective intent of the POCSO Act. At the same time, its calibrated approach to sentencing reflects judicial sensitivity to proportionality and individual circumstances.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the principle that child witness testimony, when credible and corroborated, can form the sole basis of conviction in sexual offence cases. It also sends a clear message that investigative defects cannot be used as a shield by offenders where substantive evidence establishes guilt. The judgment is likely to be cited as an important precedent in POCSO cases involving hostile or hesitant child witnesses and allegations of defective investigation.
Also Read: Delhi High Court orders reassessment, refund of excess Infrastructure Cess paid due to EDI glitch
